Reaping powerful ideas from a luminary (lunar solar power)

Sam Dinkin: How is lunar solar power (LSP) different from Earth solar or orbital solar power generation?

David Criswell: The Moon has no atmosphere, rain, or clouds to block sunlight as does the Earth. Doing the construction on the Moon is far less expensive than sending raw or processed materials to deep space for later use. There are fewer manufacturing operations. You do not have to build the platform.

Dinkin: What is the minimum money scale for a viable lunar solar power (LSP) project that would cost the same as Earth generated power?

Criswell: When LSP approaches 100 gigawatts electricity (GWe) of capacity and has delivered in excess of 500 GWe years (GWe-y) of energy the LSP energy will drop below the cost of electric energy from conventional systems. This will likely require the order of $400 to $500 billion.

This is a bit over one year of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) budget or about three years of global expenditures on exploration and development of oil and natural gas to maintain about 85 million barrels of oil per day production. A 20-terawatt-electricity (TWe) LSP is the equivalent of 1,000 million barrels of oil per day.

Dinkin: Does that include lobbying, regulatory, legal, fundraising, and marketing? Insurance? What does it include?

Criswell: The estimates are for engineering and operations costs and some interest to bring the demo to commercial scale.

Dinkin: When will the price of electricity start to drop if you were given the money today?

Criswell: Approximately 15 years after the start of an Apollo-priority program the cost of electricity would drop beneath $0.10/kilowatt electricity hour (kWe-h). By 2040 the cost would be a fraction of a cent per kWe-h.

Dinkin: Why wouldn’t the owners of the solar power production charge the monopoly price, i.e., just a hair less than the cost of Earth’s electricity sources?

Criswell: Following the demonstration phase more than one organization can be licensed to construct and operate lunar power bases. They can compete to sell electric energy to any rectenna on Earth or in space. They will have strong incentives to compete in the rapid installation of capacity.

Criswell: I attend the Houston Chapter meetings of the International Association of Energy Economists. Last Thursday Professor J. Smith of SMU gave an excellent talk on recent unpublished research on the Net Present Value (NPV) of OPEC versus the averaged selling price of oil through 2050. The NPV refers to the net profit, and not the capitalization, of OPEC that is required to extract their oil and natural gas over the next 20 or 50 years. He estimated [the NPV to be] a minimum of about $2.5 trillion and maximum of $3.3 trillion.

When the LSP system delivers 20 TWe and the energy is sold at $0.01/kWe-h then the profit is approximately $1.6 trillion/year. Thus, LSP would replicate all future OPEC NPV in two to three years.

Dinkin: That is fantastic. That is a huge source of clean power beckoning. Are you saddened by all of the deaths related to pollution and wars when we could have lunar solar today if we had stayed on the Moon with a 15-person research base in the 70s?

Criswell: Of course. The daily global lost of life due to the lack of low-cost energy is the order of the deaths from the Indonesian tsunami.

Dinkin: Suppose I want to invest. Who do I apply to in order to get a license to broadcast? Land to set up shop on the Moon?

Criswell: I believe that each nation is free to set its own uses of the electromagnetic spectrum. In fact, mutual interference must be considered. Due to the extraordinarily high value of the narrow bandwidth necessary for space power, it can displace other uses, especially those that can migrate to fibers. However, there are harmonics to consider. So, this is a work in progress.

The “Outer Space Treaty” appears to set one international basis for the use of the Moon, on a non-interference basis, by parties to the treaty. That seems adequate for a start. Of course, the law will evolve.

Dinkin: Doesn’t the Outer Space Treaty prevent any ownership interest in the Moon? “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”

Criswell: As I understand the treaty, a signatory nation or its designated organizations can occupy an area on the Moon, extract resources (physical and intangible) on a non-interference basis, and use them on the Moon or send them off the Moon. When the signatory nation or its designated organizations stop using the installations and territory then they can sell the installations but cannot sell the territory. They simply leave.

This understanding was from the NASA General Council that was provided to the Lunar Energy Enterprise Task Force in 1988.

Dinkin: Are there any drawbacks to LSP? If we adopted LSP as you advocate, aren’t we putting energy security in one basket?

Criswell: What are the other options? As far as I can tell, the other options provide far less security and actually drive regional and global insecurity. Fossil power systems are certainly subject to local (Iraq) and global (CO2, ash, mercury, etc.) problems.

The sun is the ultimate necessary power source for a truly prosperous (large-scale) human society. The other power options do not, to me, appear adequate to provide 10 billion, or more people, with more than 2 kWe/person.

Thus, priority will be given to making the LSP System robust. Also, LSP is a distributed and highly redundant system. It would be very difficulty to wipe out large portions. Also, it is very hard to sneak to the Moon.

Dinkin: The Outer Space Treaty outlaws weapons on the Moon. “The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.” Isn’t this inconsistent with defending a resource valued in trillions of dollars?

Criswell: Installations on the Moon and in orbit to secure the LSP system would directly provide security to everyone on Earth. That type of defensive operation seems appropriate and prudent.

Dinkin: Here’s a scenario: a terrorist group hijacks the regular shuttle to the Moon. They kill the operators at the Moon base, then steal local mining equipment and use it to wreck the capital equipment. Does it matter that we can see what they are doing if there is no security apparatus to stop them?

Criswell: The LSP bases are spread over tens of thousands of square kilometers and composed of hundreds of thousands of individual stand-alone power plots. The control system will also be widely distributed. It would be somewhat like taking down the Internet.

Any rational program, government or private, would provide security for the planet’s most vital economic resource.

Dinkin: DoD is testing a microwave crowd control weapon. How can the broadcaster be prevented from being weaponized?

Criswell: The control system on the Moon can be slaved to individual receivers (rectennas farms) on Earth. The distributed control system can be designed (using hardware and software) to not allow concentration of the beams above approved levels on Earth. There can be many, many off switches.

Dinkin: If your project is as over budget as other space programs, how much will we need to spend to achieve parity with Earth sources?

Criswell: All projects have to start somewhere. Jim Webb, on his way to Congress to present the first detailed cost plan for Apollo, doubled the estimate from $12.5 billion to $25 billion. The LSP payoff is so enormous, very high leverage, that an aggressive approach is reasonable.

The United States did achieve the Moon, starting from scratch, within 10 years. The cost of LSP can increase by a factor of 10 and still deliver energy that is competitive with conventional Earth systems.

The $400–500 billion expenditure seems a reasonable estimate for achieving an industrial demonstration. The LSP system, the production systems, and the transportation between the Earth and the Moon will all steadily improve and drop in unit cost as energy production and industrial learning occur and are enabled by increasing profits.

We do need to make sure that the early phases of the LSP development focus like a laser on the goal: expeditious supply of adequate, clean, affordable, and sustainable electric power for Earth. Then expand to the creation of a wealth generating economy on the Moon, Earth orbit, and beyond.

Criswell: The research that is critical to LSP is occurring worldwide in electronics, radio astronomy, automated manufacturing, and so on. The challenge is to use this growing bounty. LSP requires industrial engineering and not a prolonged research and development program. This basic knowledge and operating experience of related systems already exists and is growing daily in consumer and defense electronics, radio astronomy, automation of manufacturing, etc.

Dinkin: If the company operating the solar goes broke because it cannot make the debt payments, how much will it cost to operate the solar array without paying any capital costs?

Criswell: The operation and maintenance expenditures are very small per unit of delivered energy compared to installation. Continuing sales of energy would bring the LSP system back to profitability.

Dinkin: Will it take a government to do this investment because of its perceived risk?

Criswell: I think US government action is needed in the early phase. The needed actions are analogous to those required for the US Interstate Highway System. Even President Eisenhower could not have organized enough car dealers in 1958 to fund the Interstate. However, once the federal government committed it became possible for car dealers, even used car dealers and many other businesses and developers, to invest along side the new roads. This is similar to arguments for canals, railroads, etc.

Dinkin: Let’s explore some of the alternatives to LSP and how the transition would occur. What would happen to the price of oil, uranium, and coal if LSP undercut the current electricity prices?

Criswell: They likely all decrease in value. Their primary uses would likely change. For example, most petroleum and coal would likely go into the production of petrochemicals.

Dinkin: If it would be cheaper to burn uranium in a nuclear reactor, why wouldn’t we just do that for power generation?

Criswell: The energy content of available uranium/thorium for once-through (conventional) reactors is somewhat less than for the remaining oil and natural gas (about 400 terawatt thermal years (TWt-y) or about 110 TWe-y). A prosperous world will consume about 2,000 TWe-y each century. Thus, why invest in power systems that have a much more limited life time and return on investment?

The nuclear industry must convert to breeder reactions for much larger energy output. Every attempt to make affordable breeder reactors has failed. I think the four demonstration breeder reactors (US, Japan, Russia, France) are closed or closing. Breeder reactors also generate enormous quantities of weapons grade plutonium. A 20-TWe world would require the opening one and disposal of another “one-GWe” reactor unit every day (given the approximately 30 year lifetime) and 20,000 reactors total. The world now has only approximately 330 conventional reactors.

Dinkin: Why is LSP more credible than Earth nuclear fusion generation for $400–500 billion?

Criswell: All the components of the proposed LSP system exist and have operated for many years to decades. Stable contained fusion with a net energy output has yet to be demonstrated. The demonstration is not expected for several decades. Commercialization will take many more years.

Dinkin: You mention a 25-year ramp-up period starting in 15 years. In a similar transition, water wheels were no longer built when steam engines came online. But they continued to operate for 70 more years until they all wore out. So the number for you to beat to replace carbon electricity sources (and not just stop the production of new power plants) is the marginal cost of the fuel and operations rather than the fully loaded capital costs since all the capital costs are sunk, right?

Criswell: No. If the new technology can provide greater payoff and less risk, then the shift to the new technology can be swift and the move from the old technology can be equally swift. The production of new nuclear plants in the US stopped quickly after Three Mile Island. Conversely, the installation of new combined-cycle natural gas plants increased rapidly during the time of low-priced gas.

The number to beat is the need of the poor for adequate power, greater than 2 kWe/person, and the need of the world for sustainable clean power. My analyses indicate that no other technologically understandable option exists.

Dinkin: To aid the poor as you describe would require tremendous wealth transfer. Why will the first world owner do more than the US government is doing for foreign aid? That is, spend about 1% of its budget supporting third world growth rather than the 80-90% that you anticipate?

Criswell: LSP can operate like the Marshall Plan or other international government and corporate programs that invest in other nations to enable greater production, consumption, and wealth generation. This is far better than aid. Each rectenna becomes a power source for the local generation of sustainable net new wealth. The new wealth contributes to far larger global markets that help both the developed and developing world. The investments would be primarily in existing technologies that are known to work and provide high return.

Dinkin: The NASA budget is as big as the foreign aid budget at 1% of government spending. Why wouldn’t the first world use broadcast power for rich country pursuits like interplanetary and interstellar exploration?

Criswell: Energy absorbs about 10% to 15% of the US gross domestic product per person. LSP could significantly reduce that fraction and [thereby] accelerate the growth of American wealth. The LSP commercial infrastructure will vastly accelerate US ability to conduct missions beyond the Earth and the Moon. This is a far better option than using government discretionary income to fund space sciences versus social security and Medicare.

Dinkin: What do you say to those who think we have failed as a species to have high enough moral character to leave the Earth and would spoil the solar system and the galaxy with our presence?

Criswell: The galaxy is large enough to accommodate the most generous of human moral achievements and failures. The universe will kill us if we don’t move outward from the galactic core. Of course, nowhere is completely safe. We must keep learning.

However, what I am talking about now is the establishment of commodities manufacturing on the Moon. Useful commodities are good. A small fraction of the human race is pretty good at commodities manufacturing. We need to first provide a few of the components to collect solar power on the Moon and then enable very long electromagnetic extension cords to Earth and elsewhere (ethereal power lines).

Dinkin: What compels you to devote your life to helping humanity become spacefaring?

Criswell: It has been a fulfilling intellectually intense activity. I’ve made my money in other space-related activities. Hopefully, LSP will be a profitable activity in a reasonable time.

***Power beaming is an excellent way to send power into space. Rather than carting heavy power generation equipment and fuel, all of the mass can stay on the ground. The reference case for Earth to space elevators now utilizes power beaming. Power beaming can also be used to reduce the weight thrown to the Moon to begin scouting, pioneering, and settling. While important to make the cost of the administration’s Vision for Space Exploration reasonable and perhaps someday making space elevators feasible, the biggest value of power beaming may be beaming back to Earth after the Moon is industrialized.

An investment in Lunar industry can produce cell after cell that will have a very long life in the optimal conditions for electronics on the Moon. By producing vast farms of solar cells, power can be gathered without any clouds or atmosphere to get in the way. If the solar photovoltaic power cells are built out of Lunar materials, a small industrial base on the Moon can lead to enough power to export by radar beam back to the Earth. Lunar solar power (LSP) is a low pollution, low operating cost, high capacity power generation technology...............*** Rectifying the case for beaming Lunar solar power

So how exactly does the power get transported to earth?

Microwaves???

And how is that done exactly?

That has to be horribly inefficient. And if the microwave energy could be directed in a tight beam if the transmitting antenna ever misses its target we get microwaved...

And how is that done exactly?

Exactly!!

They all seem to gloss over the fact that 100 gigawatts electricity delivered via any technology know would totally fry any and all life at the receiver locations.

Any one who has ever worked around powerful radar stations (Like the NORAD or DEW installations) knows there is the morning bird patrol, sent out to pick up the dead birds fried by the operations of the last 24 hours.

Yet all these reports talk about how easy it is to beam power. Well maybe in the lab, with a safe backdrop.

I don't see any of these folks lining up to have their house and children microwaved 23/7/365 by enough power to run even your household fan.

Solar power stations on the moon would have to be built all around the moon, as any one spot is in darkness for two weeks out of four.

Some way of sending power around the moon itself would have to be constructed for new moon periods, as the half of the moon receiving sunlight would be facing away from the earth, where the transmiters would have to be located.

Also, some way of transmitting these huge amounts of power between continents on earth would have to be developed and constructed for the 12 hours per day when any particular point on the earth faces away from the moon.

Translation: It ain't ever going to happen!

as any one spot is in darkness for two weeks out of four.

Areas around the polls are in almost total sunlight.

If you don't like that plan. How about launching regolith (lunar dirt) into space and building solar arrays there? It would solve property dispute problems.

Areas around the polls are in almost total sunlight.

Actually, due to various irregularities in lunar orbital movement, the polar areas nod in and out of sight of the earth, so building right at the polar areas would not be sufficient.

If this concept has any prospect of working, putting the collectors and transmitters in synchronous orbit makes a lot more sense.

The info in post three shows 10,000 watts being transmitted and 500 watts recovered, or 5% of what was sent. That's a serious no go. I don't believe there are any known technologies to provide the capabilities required. Microwave energy that can be reasonably converted back to electrical power is relatively low in frequency with today's technology. Those low frequencies aren’t collimated well. The beam would be huge by the time it made it to earth. And if it could be collimated well the power densities would fry anything that passed through it. Airplanes, birds, people, whatever. Aiming the beam at anything other than the intended receiver could be considered a large-scale weapon of mass destruction. It would destroy pretty much whatever it hit. Getting international approval for such a device would be virtually impossible because of its alternate uses. There would be no prior warning of any attack made by it. A military dream weapon…

OK, this is what I am unsure of.

When I drive around, I cross bridges. They all have spaces at the beginning and end, some even in the middle.

These spaces are built in because the bridge expands from heat. It would buckle and disintegrate if there were no spaces.

So what happens if you made a solid piece of steel, filled it with holes so you could run water through it and cool it down, painted it black, and attached one end to a gearbox that was connected to a generator?

We're talking hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of pounds of pressure per square inch as this thing heats up and expands. And you would get energy from the cooling cycle as well as the heating cycle.

It might even be efficient enough to obsolete my perpetual motion machine.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.